How we got here
What happened before
the legal challenge.
A taxpayer raised questions before the County adopted the rate. Here is our account of the research and requests for review that followed.
This timeline draws on correspondence supplied to us and the taxpayer’s account of research and conversations. We are summarizing the emails rather than publishing personal contact details. The taxpayer’s identity remains private.
-
September 15, 2026 · 13 days before adoption
A taxpayer contacts LCCAD
A Lavaca County taxpayer contacted LCCAD and County officials after identifying mineral interests associated with existing wells that had been included in the County’s 2026 “new property” figures.
The initial review focused on approximately 26 mineral accounts totaling about $50 million. The taxpayer questioned whether those accounts qualified as new property and asked for the issue to be reviewed before the tax rate was adopted.
The taxpayer says the inquiry to LCCAD did not receive a response at that time.
-
September 24, 2026
A follow-up call
The taxpayer followed up with LCCAD by phone and says the response was that Pritchard & Abbott, LCCAD’s mineral appraisal contractor, had certified the mineral figures and that the figures were considered correct.
-
September 25, 2026
A meeting with the county judge
The taxpayer met with the county judge to discuss the mineral concern.
According to the taxpayer’s account of the meeting, the explanation included that changes in a well’s production—such as a change from oil to gas—could result in mineral value being treated as new property.
That explanation would later lead the taxpayer to investigate more closely how mineral value qualifies as new property.
-
September 28, 2026
The tax rate was adopted
According to the account provided to us, Commissioners Court adopted a rate of $0.6041 per $100 of taxable value. The concerns had not been resolved.
-
After the September 28 vote
The taxpayer investigates further
After meeting with the county judge, the taxpayer says they were told that changes in a well’s production, such as a change from oil to gas, could cause mineral value to be treated as “new property.” That explanation prompted a closer review.
The initial concern involved 26 mineral accounts totaling $50.06 million. The taxpayer then contacted the Texas Comptroller, spoke with a Pritchard & Abbott mineral appraiser, and reviewed Railroad Commission records and permit histories.
Through that research, the taxpayer concluded that the concern was broader than the original 26 accounts and expanded the review to the full $180.8 million in mineral “new value” included in Line 24.
-
By September 29, 2026
The disputed amount grows
$50.06 million26 mineral accounts questioned in the initial review$180.8 millionFull mineral amount disputed after further reviewWe recalculate the ratesRemoving the full amount gives us a no-new-revenue (NNR) rate of $0.5744 and a voter-approval rate of $0.6035 per $100. Both are below the adopted $0.6041.The County’s source packet shows the mineral amount. We believe the full amount was counted incorrectly as new property; that remains disputed.
-
September 29, 2026
Two emails ask for a review
On September 29, the taxpayer asked LCCAD to review the $50.06 million in questioned mineral accounts and provide support for their classification as new property. The chief appraiser said she contacted Pritchard & Abbott after the taxpayer’s initial request and that P&A reviewed the figures and was “confident there were no errors.”
But the question was not whether P&A’s mineral values were correct. It was whether P&A’s “new value” qualified as “new property value” for Line 24 of Form 50-856.
Later that day, after reviewing the County’s source documents, the taxpayer told the county judge, Tax Assessor-Collector, and county attorney the concern had expanded to the full $180.8 million in mineral “new value” included in Line 24 and asked the County to seek legal review and determine whether corrective action was needed.
-
October 1, 2026
The judge points to the published records
The judge replied that LCCAD certified the values, the Tax Assessor-Collector calculated the rates, and Commissioners Court adopted the budget and no-new-revenue (NNR) rate. The reply directed the taxpayer to the websites with the certified totals and calculations. It did not explain why the disputed mineral amount qualified as new property.
The taxpayer followed up that afternoon, again asking for a legal review of the mineral classification and verification of the rate.
Why go to court?
The concern was raised before the vote, and the taxpayer continued researching and asking for a review. According to the account provided to us, those requests did not lead to a correction.
As it stands today, an injunction under Texas Tax Code §26.05(e) appears to be the statutory mechanism available to a taxpayer to challenge an improperly adopted tax rate and seek to prevent collection until the taxing unit complies with the law.
That is why we are pursuing court action as a last resort. The lawsuit will be filed and prosecuted by a team of lawyers led by Trent Nichols and the Law Offices of Trent Nichols, PLLC.
We do not yet have a filed petition, case number, or court order to publish. This site does not confirm that a lawsuit has been filed or that a court has granted any relief.
Learn about becoming a plaintiff →